Yr. to yr. win change with and w/o dedicated analysts
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:49 am
I might be missing a few dedicated analysts but I did a quick check of year to year of win change for teams with and without known dedicated analysts (to my knowledge) over the last 2 seasons I think it was 8 improvements and 8 declines for teams with dedicated analysts and 9 improvements and 5 declines for those without.
11 of the 16 with analyst were in the playoffs though, while only 5 of the 14 without were in.
Can't say for sure how these stats would look for the teams with analysts if they weren't there.
Next season might be even more challenging from an improvement / decline standpoint for the team with analysts. I would not be that surprised if only 5 of 16 improved their win total next season. But I still expect 11 to make the playoffs.
Not sure how many of those teams without analysts will improve next season but I kinda doubt any not in the playoffs last season will improve enough to make the playoffs. More likely it will be a team with an analyst that moves up next season, if any do, in my opinion. Some teams without known analysts might knock harder on the door or get thru in 2012-3 or 2013-4.
Will be interesting to see what happens, eventually.
There is probably more that could be done to analyze upward and downward movement with and without dedicated analysts over a longer period of time: looking at offensive and defensive efficiency improvements and declines separately, whether the improvements at individual level tend to show up more with star or role players, young vs old, big minute lineups or more diffuse, etc.
The changing ratio between actual wins and expected wins based on point differential might be worth looking though it may be heavily influenced by random noise. It could be something of a measure of chemistry / coaching / analytic impact. But not separately for these actors, at least not unless without additional work like a RAPM run with coaches and with & without known analysts. That could be interesting. I'd think that could work if the time period was long enough to provide enough with and without analyst datapoints just as estimates were made for coaches. Not sure what the size of the errors were with coaches though.
One could conceivably also measure with and without heavy use of Synergy data or advanced team collection of "new / better data" by whatever means if you had the scoop on what teams were using and enough without and with datapoints for the data source additions. Theoretically you could get some readings of short-term impacts of dedicated analysts relative to the value added later by the next wave of data enhancements from an even more complex RAPM model and perhaps have something to chew on regarding the value of analysts vs better data debate. Not sure if there would be any or many datapoints with the data additions without dedicated analysts but perhaps there would be a few.
11 of the 16 with analyst were in the playoffs though, while only 5 of the 14 without were in.
Can't say for sure how these stats would look for the teams with analysts if they weren't there.
Next season might be even more challenging from an improvement / decline standpoint for the team with analysts. I would not be that surprised if only 5 of 16 improved their win total next season. But I still expect 11 to make the playoffs.
Not sure how many of those teams without analysts will improve next season but I kinda doubt any not in the playoffs last season will improve enough to make the playoffs. More likely it will be a team with an analyst that moves up next season, if any do, in my opinion. Some teams without known analysts might knock harder on the door or get thru in 2012-3 or 2013-4.
Will be interesting to see what happens, eventually.
There is probably more that could be done to analyze upward and downward movement with and without dedicated analysts over a longer period of time: looking at offensive and defensive efficiency improvements and declines separately, whether the improvements at individual level tend to show up more with star or role players, young vs old, big minute lineups or more diffuse, etc.
The changing ratio between actual wins and expected wins based on point differential might be worth looking though it may be heavily influenced by random noise. It could be something of a measure of chemistry / coaching / analytic impact. But not separately for these actors, at least not unless without additional work like a RAPM run with coaches and with & without known analysts. That could be interesting. I'd think that could work if the time period was long enough to provide enough with and without analyst datapoints just as estimates were made for coaches. Not sure what the size of the errors were with coaches though.
One could conceivably also measure with and without heavy use of Synergy data or advanced team collection of "new / better data" by whatever means if you had the scoop on what teams were using and enough without and with datapoints for the data source additions. Theoretically you could get some readings of short-term impacts of dedicated analysts relative to the value added later by the next wave of data enhancements from an even more complex RAPM model and perhaps have something to chew on regarding the value of analysts vs better data debate. Not sure if there would be any or many datapoints with the data additions without dedicated analysts but perhaps there would be a few.